Please contact Attorney General Jerry Brown, and Senator Mark DeSaulnier, Chair of Budget Subcommittee 4, and tell them to EXEMPT THE PUBLIC RIGHTS DIVISION OF DOJ, AND SPECIFICALLY THE COASTAL COMMISSION FROM THE PROPOSED INSIDIOUS LEGAL SERVICES FUNDING SHIFT.  Tell them that departments such as the Commission, whose function is to protect the public's rights, need to be certain they have legal representation to do so.
 
Senator DeSulnier: FAX: (916) 445-2527;  Electronic Email Form;  PHONE: (916) 651-4077
Attorney General Brown: FAX: (916) 445-6749;  Electronic Email Form;  PHONE: (916) 324-5437

California's Coast is again under attack and at grave risk. An insidious budget proposal is pending in budget subcommittees in the Legislature that would, for the first time since voters passed Proposition 20 in 1972 that created California's remarkably successful coastal protection law, require the Coastal Commission to pay for its legal costs to defend public access rights and protect important coastal resources.  To avoid forcing the Commission to choose between protecting public rights and resources, and funding for staff and operations the authors of Proposition 20 and the Coastal Act of 1976 intentionally structured these laws to ensure that legal costs are born by the Department of Justice (i.e., the Attorney General).  Funding these legal costs currently comes from the General Fund and are written into the DOJ budget.  This has worked extremely well for nearly forty years. Why change it now and seriously harm coastal protection?  
 
The Commission does not control who initiates legal challenges to its actions, whether developers, the Pacific Legal Foundation or environmentalists.  It does have discretion over legal actions it brings to enforce the law, and penalties and fines it pursues to deter law breakers and seek compensation for lost public resources.  Under threat of possible legal action, the Commission may have to choose whether or not to deny a project or to impose conditions to bring the project into compliance with the Coastal Act.  By shifting legal costs directly to the Commission with an already underfunded budget, protection of coastal resources will inevitably be sacrificed.  This funding shift will abandon coastal protection to well-healed anti-protection ideologues and deep-pocket developers who would be encouraged to sue more often knowing the Commission will run out of money and consequently elect to save its operations rather than protection of public rights and resources.
 
The State will be setting aside 48 million dollars to cover attorney's fees for all agencies currently being served by the Attorney General's office.  This is only about 60% of what has been needed in the past.  To obtain funds the Commission will have to petition for funds and compete with every other agency, including the Department of Corrections, etc.  The Department of Finance (i.e. the Governor) will decide who gets the money while there are still funds left.  This shift, if approved, will also give unprecedented control over the Commission's enforcement of coastal protection policies and pursuit of Coastal Act violators to the Governor.  Consider the devastating consequences of an anti-coastal protection Governor having such control.
 
Jerry Brown's (the Attorney General) budget people support this bad idea.  Whether he personally supports this regressive funding shift is not clear.  The Attorney General's office has an impressive record of wins defending public rights and coastal resources against land-owners who block public access to the beach, powerful developers and corporations who want to destroy sensitive natural resources to build new shopping centers and subdivisions, oil companies, the military, energy companies, and powerful, politically connected special interests who would build toll roads through state parks. These legal actions are critical to the continued protection of our coast for the benefit of current and future generations.
 
This ill-advised budget shift proposal is being considered right now by budget sub-committees in Sacramento. It is supported by the Department of Finance (DOF), Legislative Analyst's Office (LAO), AG budget staff, and Committee staff, none of whom understand  the reality of how coastal protection is actually achieved on the ground.  For example, the LAO thinks it's a good idea for the Commission to get Department of Finance approval before litigation is undertaken!  This removes form the commission the final decision about whether or not coastal resources need protection and places that decision under the jurisdiction of those unfamiliar with the issues.